United States V. Texas, No. 15-674
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
No. 15-674 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Respondents. _________ ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE THE MAYORS OF NEW YORK, LOS ANGELES, ATLANTA, EIGHTY-ONE ADDITIONAL MAYORS, COUNTY EXECUTIVES, AND LOCALITIES, THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, AND THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ZACHARY W. CARTER MICHAEL N. FEUER Corporation Counsel of the City Attorney City of New York JAMES P. CLARK RICHARD DEARING* Chief Deputy City Attorney CECELIA CHANG WENDY SHAPERO JEREMY W. SHWEDER Deputy City Attorney New York City Law Attorneys for the City of Los Department Angeles and Mayor Eric 100 Church Street Garcetti New York, NY 10007 (212) 356-2500 CATHY HAMPTON [email protected] City Attorney Attorneys for the City of Attorney for Kasim Reed, New York and Mayor Mayor of Atlanta Bill de Blasio Counsel for Amici Curiae * Counsel of Record TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............................. 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................. 5 THERE IS PRESSING NEED FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW BY THIS COURT ..................................... 5 I. Immediate Review Is Necessary to Protect the Integrity of Millions of Families .......................................................... 6 II. Immediate Review Will Avoid Harms to Law Enforcement and Public Safety Efforts ........................................................... 12 III. Immediate Review Is Critical Because of the Economic Costs of the Preliminary Injunction for Local Governments Nationwide ................................................... 15 IV. The Court’s Review Is Vital to Clarify for This and Future Cases When Plaintiffs May Have Standing to Obtain Nationwide Injunctions That Harm Residents In Other Jurisdictions ................ 18 CONCLUSION ........................................................ 24 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Federal Cases Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) ............................................. 6 Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) ............................................. 7 Other Authorities Ajay Chaudry, et al., Urban Institute, Facing Our Future: Children in the Aftermath of Immigration Enforcement (February 2010) ................. 8, 11, 12 Audrey Singer, et al., Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, Local Insights From DACA for Implementing Future Programs for Unauthorized Immigrants (June 2015) .................................................................. 20 ii Joanna Dreby, Center for American Progress, Executive Action on Immigration Will Help Children and Families (March 3, 2015) ........................... 12 Joanna Dreby, Center for American Progress, How Today’s Immigration Enforcement Policies Impact Children, Families, and Communities (August 2012) ................................ 7 Laurel Lucia, et al., UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Health Insurance and Demographics of California Immigrants Eligible for Deferred Action (March 26, 2015) ..................... 21 Matthew Gardner, et al., Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy, Undocumented Immigrants’ State & Local Tax Contributions (April 2015) ............................................................. 16, 17 iii Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, Giving and Getting, Regional Distribution of Revenue and Spending in the New York State Budget, Fiscal Year 2009-10 ................... 17 Obergefell v. Hodges, Nos. 14-556, 14- 562, 14-571, 14-574, Brief of Louisiana, et al., as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents ..................................... 2 Oversight of the Administration’s Misdirected Immigration Enforcement Policies: Examining the Impact on Public Safety and Honoring the Victims, Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. (July 21, 2015) (statement of Tom Manger, Major Cities Chiefs Association) ....................................................... 14 Paul Taylor, et al., Pew Research Center, Unauthorized Immigrants: Length of Residency, Patterns of Parenthood (Dec. 1, 2011) ................................... 9 iv Press Release, Cities United for Immigration Action, As Court Hears Argument Today on Obama’s Immigration Reforms, Cities Nationwide Announce New Actions (April 15, 2015) ..................................... 20 Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, North American Integration and Development Center, UCLA, The Economic Benefits of Expanding the Dream: DAPA and DACA Impacts on Los Angeles and California (Jan. 26, 2015) ................................................................... 16 Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, North American Integration and Development Center, UCLA, The Economic Benefits of Expanding the Dream: DAPA and DACA Impacts on the State of Texas and Harris, Tarrant, and Dallas Counties (Feb. 2, 2015) ..................... 4 Seth Freed Wessler, Applied Research Center, Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection of Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System (November 2011) ..................................................................... 8 v United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, Brief Addressing the Merits of the State of Indiana and 16 Other States As Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives ................................... 7 vi INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1 Amici signatories to this brief represent a broad coalition of local governments across the nation— from the largest cities in the United States to small towns throughout the country.2 More than 1.25 million children and parents potentially eligible for relief under the enjoined executive guidance, representing over 30 percent of the undocumented immigrants so eligible, reside in amici’s towns and cities. Amici submit this brief to explain the compelling need for this Court to grant review. The nationwide injunction entered by a single federal district court and upheld by two circuit judges is unprecedented and sweeping in scope: it has profound daily impact on the lives, safety, and integrity of millions of families and children, and imposes daily harm on all of our residents. Amici mayors, county officials, local governments, and their city councils confront a reality that no injunction or lawsuit can erase. The 1 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no party or counsel for a party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No person other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to this brief’s preparation or submission. All counsel of record provided blanket consent for the filing of amicus briefs or received timely notice and consented to the filing of this brief. 2 The signature pages to this brief contain a list of all amici. parents and children directly harmed by the injunction in this case are longstanding members of our communities and are also members of families that include millions of citizen children. The challenged executive guidance responds to those realities in two main ways. The guidance establishes a process for eligible parents and children to apply for discretionary deferred action relief, providing key assurance that families will not be split apart by deportation during the periods covered by the guidance. Also, by expanding access to deferred action relief, the guidance opens a path to work authorization and basic economic security for qualifying individuals. The nationwide injunction impairs the humanitarian aims of the guidance, harming our communities as a whole. Keeping families together is of enormous importance to our residents. The threat of separating even one parent from a child imposes substantial harm, as does the inability of a parent to work lawfully to support his or her family. The impact is greater when magnified across local communities nationwide. Just last year, many of the respondent states emphasized to this Court the importance of stable marriages and strong parental support to successfully raise children.3 The same 3 See Obergefell v. Hodges, Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14- 574, Brief of Louisiana, et al., as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, at 11-12. 2 interests those states espoused then confirm the urgent need for this Court to review the challenged injunction now. The harm to children, millions of whom are U.S. citizens, and the ripple effects across their home communities, do not depend on the reason why children are threatened with deprivation of parental care and support. Likewise, amici know from running local governments that the safety and welfare of all residents are interconnected. The enjoined guidance was issued to encourage undocumented residents who are longstanding and law-abiding members of our communities to come out of the shadows, be counted, and more fully participate in civic and economic life. Amici local governments cannot act in the best interest of all residents if some live in fear, distrustful of government and isolated from their communities. Immigration status has little or no bearing on many of the issues most important to our residents’ daily lives, and for which local governments bear primary responsibility. Preventing crime, for example, is a compelling interest that unites all residents. Yet undocumented immigrants are often understandably reluctant